> Tools are useful in validating work. Each tool has individual
> strengths and weaknesses - but they aren't what accessibility
> is about.
As Jim Thatcher pointed out on his related post on his website, the
tools are also extraordinarily useful for locating errors, and
increasingly so as the size of the site increases. In many cases
repairing a large site with a large number of authors is fighting
against the current of new errors introduced daily. Even if all you do
is use a tool to help identify errors of a few common and
programmatically identifyable types and then you fix those and the
backlog of other machine-identifyable errors, you're making progress
toward a more accessible site more quickly than you would otherwise. On
a large site, errors being machine testable, even partially so, can make
a huge difference.
AWK